The Kajiado Environment and Land Court has issued orders temporarily stopping the implementation and enforcement of provisions of the Kajiado County Finance Act, 2026 that require payment of land rates on rateable properties and rent on allotted properties.
The orders were sought in a petition filed by Sheria Mtaani challenging the legality and constitutionality of the county government’s decision to impose the charges.
The petition targets Sections 14(8), 14(9) and 14(13), read together with the Tenth Schedule of the Kajiado County Finance Act, 2026.
The petitioner, through lawyers Shadrack Wambui and Danstan Omari, argue that the county government cannot lawfully impose land rates without first preparing, publishing, validating and operationalising a valuation roll as required under the National Rating Act, 2024.
According to the application, the absence of a valuation roll has left property owners exposed to what the petitioners describe as arbitrary and unexplained financial demands.
The petitioners further contend that the disputed provisions replicate problems that had previously been considered by the Kajiado Environment and Land Court.
They cite Kajiado ELC Petition No. E002 of 2024, identified in the application as the L. Komingoi case, in which the court is said to have found that the basis upon which rates under the 2023 Finance Act had been arrived at could not be ascertained and consequently declared the impugned provisions unconstitutional.
They argue that the court in that matter found that attempts to vary rent payable for allotted properties without a valuation roll were unlawful.
The petitioners maintain that despite these previous decisions, the county proceeded to enact the 2026 Finance Act without addressing what they describe as the legal defects identified by the court.
They have therefore asked the court to suspend the implementation and enforcement of the disputed provisions until the substantive petition is heard and determined.
The application raises several constitutional issues, including the right to property under Article 40, the requirement for lawful taxation under Article 210 and the principles of transparency, accountability and equity in public finance under Article 201.
The petitioners also allege that the process leading to the enactment and implementation of the disputed charges did not provide adequate public participation as required by Article 10 of the Constitution.
They claim that residents were not given sufficient information on the methodology used to arrive at the rates or an effective opportunity to interrogate the data and valuation basis underlying the charges.
The petitioners further argue that enforcement of the disputed rates could expose property owners to penalties and other enforcement measures if they fail to pay.
They have told the court that continued enforcement would cause widespread prejudice to residents and potentially render the substantive petition nugatory.
The court was consequently asked to preserve the status quo by stopping enforcement of the disputed provisions pending determination of the case.
The orders currently concern the challenged provisions of the Kajiado County Finance Act, 2026 and remain subject to the further proceedings and determination of the substantive petition.
